Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution


HOME

by Thayumanavan Sridhar, Future Communications Software

ABOUT CISCO
PUBLICATIONS AND
MERCHANDISE
THE INTERNET PROTOCOL
JOURNAL
ISSUES
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2,
SEPTEMBER 1998
From The Editor
What Is a VPN - Part II
Reliable Multicast
Protocols and
Applications
Layer 2 and Layer 3
Switch Evolution
Book Review
Fragments

Weak Links in the Threat Landscape


Cisco identifies weak links in our 2014
Midyear Security Report.

Read Report

Layer 2 switches are frequently installed in the enterprise for high-speed


connectivity between end stations at the data link layer. Layer 3 switches are a
relatively new phenomenon, made popular by (among others) the trade press.
This article details some of the issues in the evolution of Layer 2 and Layer 3
switches. We hypothesize that that the technology is evolutionary and has its
origins in earlier products.
Layer 2 Switches
Bridging technology has been around since the 1980s (and maybe even earlier).
Bridging involves segmentation of local-area networks (LANs) at the Layer 2
level. A multiport bridge typically learns about the Media Access Control (MAC)
addresses on each of its ports and transparently passes MAC frames destined
to those ports. These bridges also ensure that frames destined for MAC
addresses that lie on the same port as the originating station are not forwarded
to the other ports. For the sake of this discussion, we consider only Ethernet
LANs.

Download PDF
Layer 2 switches effectively provide the same functionality. They are similar to
multiport bridges in that they learn and forward frames on each port. The major
difference is the involvement of hardware that ensures that multiple switching
paths inside the switch can be active at the same time. For example, consider
Figure 1, which details a four-port switch with stations A on port 1, B on port 2, C
on port 3 and D on port 4. Assume that A desires to communicate with B, and C
desires to communicate with D. In a single CPU bridge, this forwarding would
typically be done in software, where the CPU would pick up frames from each of
the ports sequentially and forward them to appropriate output ports. This
process is highly inefficient in a scenario like the one indicated previously, where

1 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

the traffic between A and B has no relation to the traffic between C and D.
Figure 1: Layer 2 switch with External Router for Inter-VLAN traffic and
connecting to the Internet

(Click on image to enlarge.)


Enter hardware-based Layer 2 switching. Layer 2 switches with their hardware
support are able to forward such frames in parallel so that A and B and C and D
can have simultaneous conversations. The parallel-ism has many advantages.
Assume that A and B are NetBIOS stations, while C and D are Internet Protocol
(IP) stations. There may be no rea-son for the communication between A and C
and A and D. Layer 2 switching allows this coexistence without sacrificing
efficiency.
Virtual LANs
In reality, however, LANs are rarely so clean. Assume a situation where A,B,C,
and D are all IP stations. A and B belong to the same IP subnet, while C and D
belong to a different subnet. Layer 2 switching is fine, as long as only A and B or
C and D communicate. If A and C, which are on two different IP subnets, need
to communicate, Layer 2 switching is inadequate?the communication requires
an IP router. A corollary of this is that A and B and C and D belong to different
broadcast domains?that is, A and B should not ?see? the MAC layer broadcasts
from C and D, and vice versa. However, a Layer 2 switch cannot distinguish
between these broadcasts?bridging technology involves forwarding broadcasts
to all other ports, and it cannot tell when a broadcast is restricted to the same IP
subnet.
Virtual LANs (VLANs) apply in this situation. In short, Layer 2 VLANs are Layer
2 broadcast domains. MAC broadcasts are restricted to the VLANs that stations
are configured into. How can the Layer 2 switch make this distinction? By
configuration. VLANs involve configuration of ports or MAC addresses.
Port-based VLANs indicate that all frames that originate from a port belong to
the same VLAN, while MAC address-based VLANs use MAC addresses to
determine VLAN membership. In Figure 1, ports 1 and 2 belong to the same

2 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

VLAN, while ports 3 and 4 belong to a different VLAN. Note that there is an
implicit relationship between the VLANs and the IP subnets?however,
configuration of Layer 2 VLANs does not involve specifying Layer 3 parameters.
We indicated earlier that stations on two different VLANs can com-municate only
via a router. The router is typically connected to one of the switch ports (Figure
1). This router is sometimes referred to as a one-armed router since it receives
and forwards traffic on to the same port. In reality, of course, such routers
connect to other switches or to wide-area networks (WANs). Some Layer 2
switches provide this Layer 3 routing functionality within the same box to avoid
an exter-nal router and to free another switch port. This scenario is reminiscent
of the large multiprotocol routers of the early ?90s, which offered routing and
bridging functions.
A popular classification of Layer 2 switches is ?cut-through? versus ?storeand-forward.? Cut-through switches make the forwarding decision as the frame
is being received by just looking at the header of the frame. Store-and-forward
switches receive the entire Layer 2 frame before making the forwarding
decision. Hybrid adaptable switches which adapt from cut-through to storeand-forward based on the error rate in the MAC frames are very popular.
Characteristics
Layer 2 switches themselves act as IP end nodes for Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP) management, Telnet, and Web based
management. Such management functionality involves the presence of an IP
stack on the router along with User Datagram Protocol (UDP), Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP), Telnet, and SNMP functions. The switches themselves
have a MAC address so that they can be addressed as a Layer 2 end node
while also providing transparent switch functions. Layer 2 switching does not, in
general, involve changing the MAC frame. However, there are situations when
switches change the MAC frame. The IEEE 802.1Q Committee is working on a
VLAN standard that involves ?tagging? a MAC frame with the VLAN it belongs
to; this tagging process involves changing the MAC frame. Bridging technology
also involves the Spanning-Tree Protocol. This is required in a multibridge
network to avoid loops.
The same principles also apply towards Layer 2 switches, and most commercial
Layer 2 switches support the Spanning-Tree Protocol. The previous discussion
provides an outline of Layer 2 switching func-tions. Layer 2 switching is MAC
frame based, does not involve altering the MAC frame, in general, and provides
transparent switching in par-allel with MAC frames. Since these switches
operate at Layer 2, they are protocol independent. However, Layer 2 switching
does not scale well because of broadcasts. Although VLANs alleviate this
problem to some extent, there is definitely a need for machines on different
VLANs to communicate. One example is the situation where an orga-nization
has multiple intranet servers on separate subnets (and hence VLANs), causing

3 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

a lot of intersubnet traffic. In such cases, use of a router is unavoidable; Layer 3


switches enter at this point.
Layer 3 Switches
Layer 3 switching is a relatively new term, which has been ?extended? by a
numerous vendors to describe their products. For example, one school uses this
term to describe fast IP routing via hardware, while another school uses it to
describe Multi Protocol Over ATM (MPOA). For the purpose of this discussion,
Layer 3 switches are superfast rout-ers that do Layer 3 forwarding in hardware.
In this article, we will mainly discuss Layer 3 switching in the context of fast IP
routing, with a brief discussion of the other areas of application.
Evolution
Consider the Layer 2 switching context shown in Figure 1. Layer 2 switches
operate well when there is very little traffic between VLANs. Such VLAN traffic
would entail a router?either ?hanging off? one of the ports as a one-armed
router or present internally within the switch. To augment Layer 2 functionality,
we need a router?which leads to loss of performance since routers are typically
slower than switches. This scenario leads to the question: Why not implement a
router in the switch itself, as discussed in the previous section, and do the
forwarding in hardware?
Although this setup is possible, it has one limitation: Layer 2 switches need to
operate only on the Ethernet MAC frame. This scenario in turn leads to a
well-defined forwarding algorithm which can be implemented in hardware. The
algorithm cannot be extended easily to Layer 3 protocols because there are
multiple Layer 3 routable protocols such as IP, IPX, AppleTalk, and so on; and
second, the forwarding decision in such protocols is typically more complicated
than Layer 2 forwarding decisions.
What is the engineering compromise? Because IP is the most common among
all Layer 3 protocols today, most of the Layer 3 switches today perform IP
switching at the hardware level and forward the other protocols at Layer 2 (that
is, bridge them). The second issue of complicated Layer 3 forwarding decisions
is best illustrated by IP option processing, which typically causes the length of
the IP header to vary, complicating the building of a hardware forwarding
engine. However, a large number of IP packets do not include IP options?so, it
may be overkill to design this processing into silicon. The compromise is that the
most common (fast path) forwarding decision is designed into silicon, whereas
the others are handled typically by a CPU on the Layer 3 switch.
To summarize, Layer 3 switches are routers with fast forwarding done via
hardware. IP forwarding typically involves a route lookup, decrementing the
Time To Live (TTL) count and recalculating the checksum, and forwarding the
frame with the appropriate MAC header to the correct output port. Lookups can
be done in hardware, as can the decrementing of the TTL and the recalculation

4 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

of the checksum. The routers run routing protocols such as Open Shortest Path
First (OSPF) or Routing Information Protocol (RIP) to communicate with other
Layer 3 switches or routers and build their routing tables. These routing tables
are looked up to determine the route for an incoming packet.
Combined Layer 2/Layer 3 Switches
We have implicitly assumed that Layer 3 switches also provide Layer 2
switching functionality, but this assumption does not always hold true. Layer 3
switches can act like traditional routers hanging off multiple Layer 2 switches
and provide inter-VLAN connectivity. In such cases, there is no Layer 2
functionality required in these switches. This concept can be illustrated by
extending the topology in Figure 1?consider placing a pure Layer 3 switch
between the Layer 2 Switch and the router. The Layer 3 Switch would off-load
the router from inter-VLAN processing.
Figure 2: Combined Layer2/Layer3 Switch connecting directly to the Internet

(Click on image to enlarge.)


Figure 2 illustrates the combined Layer 2/Layer 3 switching function-ality. The
combined Layer 2/Layer 3 switch replaces the traditional router also. A and B
belong to IP subnet 1, while C and D belong to IP subnet 2. Since the switch in
consideration is a Layer 2 switch also, it switches traffic between A and B at
Layer 2. Now consider the situ-ation when A wishes to communicate with C. A
sends the IP packet addressed to the MAC address of the Layer 3 switch, but
with an IP destination address equal to C?s IP address. The Layer 3 switch
strips out the MAC header and switches the frame to C after performing the
lookup, decrementing the TTL, recalculating the checksum and inserting C?s
MAC address in the destination MAC address field. All of these steps are done
in hardware at very high speeds.
Now how does the switch know that C?s IP destination address is Port 3? When
it performs learning at Layer 2, it only knows C?s MAC address. There are
multiple ways to solve this problem. The switch can perform an Address
Resolution Protocol (ARP) lookup on all the IP subnet 2 ports for C?s MAC
address and determine C?s IP-to-MAC mapping and the port on which C lies.
The other method is for the switch to determine C?s IP-to-MAC mapping by

5 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

snooping into the IP header on reception of a MAC frame.


Characteristics
Configuration of the Layer 3 switches is an important issue. When the Layer 3
switches also perform Layer 2 switching, they learn the MAC addresses on the
ports?the only configuration required is the VLAN configuration. For Layer 3
switching, the switches can be configured with the ports corresponding to each
of the subnets or they can perform IP address learning. This process involves
snooping into the IP header of the MAC frames and determining the subnet on
that port from the source IP address. When the Layer 3 switch acts like a
one-armed router for a Layer 2 switch, the same port may consist of multiple IP
subnets.
Management of the Layer 3 switches is typically done via SNMP. Layer 3
switches also have MAC addresses for their ports?this setup can be one per
port, or all ports can use the same MAC address. The Layer 3 switches typically
use this MAC address for SNMP, Telnet, and Web management communication.
Conceptually, the ATM Forum?s LAN Emulation (LANE) specificat-ion is closer
to the Layer 2 switching model, while MPOA is closer to the Layer 3 switching
model. Numerous Layer 2 switches are equipped with ATM interfaces and
provide a LANE client function on that ATM interface. This scenario allows the
bridging of MAC frames across an ATM network from switch to switch. The
MPOA is closer to combined Layer2/Layer 3 switching, though the MPOA client
does not have any routing protocols running on it. (Routing is left to the MPOA
server under the Virtual Router model.)
Do Layer 3 switches completely eliminate need for the traditional router ? No,
routers are still needed, especially where connections to the wide area are
required. Layer 3 switches may still connect to such routers to learn their tables
and route packets to them when these packets need to be sent over the WAN.
The switches will be very effective on the workgroup and the backbone within an
enterprise, but most likely will not replace the router at the edge of the WAN
(read Internet in many cases). Routers perform numerous other functions like
filtering with access lists, inter-Autonomous System (AS) routing with protocols
such as the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), and so on. Some Layer 3 switches
may completely replace the need for a router if they can provide all these
functions (see Figure 2).
References
[1] Computer Networks, 3rd Edition, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, ISBN 0-13349945-6, Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[2] Interconnections: Bridges and Routers, Radia Perlman, ISBN 0-20156332-0, Addison-Wesley, 1992.

6 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

[3] "MAC Bridges," ISO/IEC 10038, ANSI/IEEE Standard 802.1 D-1993.


[4] "Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks," IEEE P802.1Q/D6,
May 1997.
[5] "Internet Protocol," Jon Postel, RFC 791, 1981.
[6] "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers," Fred Baker, RFC 1812, June 1995.
[7] "LAN Emulation over ATM Version 1.0," af-lane-0021.000, The ATM Forum,
January 1995.
[8] "Multiprotocol over ATM (MPOA) Specication Version 1.0" af-mpoa0087.000, The ATM Forum, July 1997.
THAYUMANAVAN SRIDHAR is Director of Engineering at Future
Communications Software in Santa Clara, CA. He received his BE in Electronics
and Communications Engineering from the College of Engineering, Guindy,
Anna University, Madras, India, his Master of Science in Electrical and
Computer Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He can be
reached at sridhar@futsoft.com

Information For

News & Alerts

Support

About Cisco

Small Business

Newsroom

Downloads

Investor Relations

Midsize Business

Blogs

Documentation

Corporate Social Responsibility

Service Provider

Field Notices

Executives

Security Advisories

Industries

Technology Trends

Learning Network

Cloud

Support Community

Contacts
Contact Cisco
Find a Partner

Internet of Things (IoT)


Mobility
Software Defined Networking (SDN)

Communities
DevNet

Video Portal

Environmental Sustainability
Tomorrow Starts Here
Our People

Careers
Search Jobs
Life at Cisco

Programs
Cisco Designated VIP Program
Cisco Powered
Financing Options

7 of 8

2/7/2015 6:44 AM

Layer 2 and Layer 3 Switch Evolution - The Internet Protocol Journal - Volume 1, No. 2 - Cisc...

Contacts |

8 of 8

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_1-2/switch_evolution.html

Feedback | Help | Site Map | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Cookie Policy | Trademarks

2/7/2015 6:44 AM